The Existence of God

The
Existence of
God
2019
Ehab Roufail

Outline
1. Evidence for a
beginning of the
Universe
2. Evidence for fine
tuning in the Universe
3. Solar System’s
fitness for life
4. Earth’s fitness for life
5. The miracle of life

What the Bible says on a
design to the Universe
The Bible begins with the statement that God
created the heavens and the earth – Gen 1
Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

What the Bible says on design to the
Universe
The Bible begins with the statement that God
created the heavens and the earth – Gen 1
Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

What the Bible says on a
design to the Universe
Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from
heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of people, who suppress the truth
by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain
to them, because God has made it plain to
them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine
nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse.

Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from
heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of people, who suppress the truth
by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain
to them, because God has made it plain to
them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine
nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse.
What the Bible says on design to the
Universe

Early Scientists
• “The ordinary course of nature
in the whole of creation has
certain natural laws” St.
Augustine of Hippo 354AD -
430AD
• This cosmic law on which the
universe runs was
investigated by early scientists
Newton, Galileo and others as
a religious quest
• Newton, Galileo, Johannes
Kepler and Galileo Galilei,
gave birth to the modern
scientific age.

Early Scientists
• 340 B.C Aristotle writes in his book “on the
Heavens” that the earth was a round sphere
rather than a flat plate – due to two
oservations:
– During an eclipse of the moon – the earths shadow
is always round
– The North star appeared to be lower in the sky in
the south than in more northern regions
• Isaiah 40:22 (~720 BC) reads, “It is he [i.e. God] who
sits above the circle of the earth.”
– There is good reason to believe that the word translated
‘circle’ might be better translated ‘sphere’. The Hebrew
word in question is khûg (‫)חּוג‬

Ptolemy – 150 AD
Source - http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/
Aristotle and Ptolemy Model

Copernicus, Galileo and
Kepler – 1600s
SN 1604
Phases of Venus 1610
Elliptical orbits

Sir Isaac Newton (1642
– 1727) – Elliptical
Orbits of Planets
• Principia
mathematica
• Law of
Universal
Gravitation
– Confirmed
Kepler’s Laws
of planetary
motion
Universal
Gravitation

Albert Einstein
(1879 – 1955)
• Accurate observations of the
planet Mercury revealed a
small difference between its
motion and the predictions of
Newton’s theory of gravity
• Einstein’s general theory of
relativity predicted a slightly
different motion from
Newton’s theory.
• Einstein’s predictions
matched what was seen,
while Newton’s did not
• This was one of the crucial
confirmations of the new
theory.

Newton:
•mass tells gravity how
to exert a force, force
tells mass how to
accelerate
•(F = m a)
Einstein:
•mass-energy (E=mc²)
tells space time how to
curve, curved space-
time tells mass-energy
how to move

Did the Universe have a
beginning?
• Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century
proposed the theory that the universe is an
infinite expanse with no beginning and no
end and no creator.
• That led to several scientists from this
period onwards believing that the Universe
had always existed.
• They believed that Mass, Space, Time and
Energy that compose our universe had
always existed

beginning?
• “Many scientists who are
struggling to construct a fully
comprehensible theory of the
physical universe openly admit
that part of the motivation is…
• …to finally get rid of God, whom
they view as a dangerous and
infantile delusion.”
Paul Davis – The Goldilocks
Enigma

Did the Universe
have a beginning?
• In1929, Edwin
Hubble announced
we were in a huge
universe, so big it
would take light
billions of years to
travel across it. Not
only was it
immense, but every
part was moving
away from every
other part at
incredible speeds,
some receding at
100 million miles an
hour!

Monsignor Georges
Lemaître & Albert
Einstein, 1933
• Between the 20s and 30s
this Belgian priest and
mathematics teacher
published a theory that
changed the course of
cosmology in the twentieth
century.
• Taking Hubble's
observation that the
galaxies were rapidly
receding from one another,
he ran the theory
backwards to a time when
all the matter in the
universe was very close
together.

beginning?
• He called this the "primordial atom"
and imagined a beginning when the
whole universe exploded like
"fireworks of unimaginable beauty"
with a "big noise."(3)
• Thus was born the Big Bang theory.
• In January 1933, the Belgian
mathematician and Catholic priest
Georges Lemaitre traveled with
Albert Einstein to California for a
series of seminars.
• After the Belgian detailed his Big
Bang theory, Einstein stood up
applauded, and said, “This is the
most beautiful and satisfactory
explanation of creation to which I
have ever listened.”

• But while Einstein imagined an unknown force – a
cosmological constant – which kept the world stable,
Lemaitre decided that the universe was expanding.
• He came to this conclusion after observing the reddish
glow, known as a red shift, surrounding objects
outside of our galaxy. If interpreted as a Doppler
effect, this shift in color meant that the galaxies were
moving away from us.
• Most scientists who read Lemaitre's paper accepted
that the universe was expanding, at least in the
present era, but they resisted the implication that the
universe had a beginning.
beginning?

• Remember Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century who
proposed the theory that the universe is an infinite
expanse with no beginning and no end and no
creator.
• Some scientists were used to the idea that time had
gone on forever. It seemed illogical that infinite
millions of years had passed before the universe
came into existence.
• Eddington, who was one of Lemaitre’s professors at
Cambridge, himself wrote in the English journal Nature
that the notion of a beginning of the world was
"repugnant."
beginning?

The Big Bang –
Evidence
The COBE Telescope 1992
• COBE revolutionized our
understanding of the
early cosmos.
• It precisely measured
and mapped the oldest
light in the universe --
the cosmic microwave
background.
• The cosmic microwave
background spectrum
was measured with a
precision of 0.005%.
• The results confirmed
the Big Bang theory of
the origin of the
universe.
• The very precise
measurements helped
eliminate a great many
theories about the Big
Bang.

The Big Bang -
Evidence
The cosmic
microwave
background radiation
is a remnant of the Big
Bang. These minute
temperature variations
(depicted here as
varying shades of blue
and purple) are linked
to slight density
variations in the early
universe. These
variations are believed
to have given rise to
the structures that
populate the universe
today: clusters of
galaxies, as well as
vast, empty regions.

Evidence for the beginning of the Universe

The Big Bang - Evidence
• Edwin Hubble (1889 – 1953)
– Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson CA
Discovered galaxies beyond the Milky Way
• Measured distances by “brightness”
• Light from distant galaxies is “red shifted”
 Galaxies are all moving away
• Hubble’s Law (1929)
H = v/d

The Big Bang - Evidence
• Edwin Hubble (1929)
– Assumes all galaxies emit similar light
– Spectroscopically measured light from far off galaxies
– Light from distant galaxies is “red shifted” , i.e. has
longer wavelengths than light from nearby galaxies
– Confirmation of Big bang theory.
• Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
– Princeton and Bell Labs (New Jersey)
– New radio telescopes
– Found microwave “noise” everywhere
– Determined age of the universe (13.7 billion years)
• Oldest galaxy – UDFy 38135539 (2011)
– 13.07 billion light years away (600 MY after the big
bang)

1981 Stephen Hawking at a Jesuit Conference In the
Vatican
“At the end of the conference the participants were
granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was
all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big
bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself
because that was the moment of Creation and therefore
the work of God.
I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk
I had just given at the conference – the possibility that
space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means
that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.”
The Universe had a definite
Beginning

“The Idea that space and time may form a
closed surface without boundary also has
profound implications for the role of God in
the affairs of the universe. … it would still be
up to God to wind up the clockwork and
choose how to start if off. So long as the
universe had a beginning, we could suppose
it had a creator.”
A Brief History of Time: Stephen Hawking 1988.
Beginning

The Greatest Discovery (COBE, 1992)
• COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) was a
satellite that measured the temperature of the
radiation left over from the Big Bang.
• This background heat was expected to be
present from the tremendous energy released
as a result of the Big Bang explosion.
• The temperature had been measured many
years before and was found to be ~3°K
wherever anybody looked.
Beginning

The 2.75 ˚K background as
seen by WMAP
Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team

• However, in order for galaxies to have formed, it was
required according to theory that there would be small
variations of temperature on the order of one part in
10,000.
• None of our previous instruments were sensitive
enough to measure this small variation, until COBE.
• The COBE satellite found the expected variation in
temperature and mapped it, providing a startling
confirmation of the Hot Big Bang model.
• These results have largely silenced critics of the Big
Bang, who were hoping to get rid of the “problem” of
an initial beginning to the universe.
Beginning

• When word of the 1998 Berkeley discovery that
the universe is expanding at an increasing
rate first reached Stephen Hawking, he said it
was too preliminary to be taken seriously.
• Later, he changed his mind. "I have now had
more time to consider the observations, and
they look quite good," he told Astronomy
magazine (October 1999). "This led me to
reconsider my theoretical prejudices."
Beginning

l “unbelievably important... They have found
the Holy Grail of cosmology”
Michael Turner (University of Chicago)
l “It is the discovery of the century, if not all
time”
Stephen Hawking (Cambridge University, UK)
l “What we have found is evidence for the
birth of the universe. It’s like looking at
God.”
George Smoot (UC Berkeley - COBE project leader)
Beginning

l “unbelievably important... They have found
the Holy Grail of cosmology”
Michael Turner (University of Chicago)
l “It is the discovery of the century, if not all
time”
Stephen Hawking (Cambridge University, UK)
l “What we have found is evidence for the
birth of the universe. It’s like looking at
God.”
George Smoot (UC Berkeley - COBE project leader)
The Universe had a definite Beginning

The Universe had a
definite Beginning
The conclusion of this
lecture is that the
universe has not
existed forever.
Rather, the universe,
and time itself, had a
beginning in the Big
Bang, about 15 billion
years ago. The
beginning of real time,
would have been a
singularity, at which
the laws of physics
would have broken
down. [Brief History of
Time]

The Goldilocks Enigma
Why is the universe “just right” for life?
• Necessity
• Random chance
– We are winners of the cosmic lottery
• Design

The Laws of Nature
• “The Laws of Nature” – mathematical
relationships that describe what we
observe.
• The Law of Gravity
• First and Second Law of Thermodynamics
• Theory of Relativity ( E = mc2 )
• …..
• Each of these laws is defined by a
constant which could (theoretically) have
different values than what we observe.

Evidence for fine tuning in
the Universe
• During the first few minutes after the creation event
the basic elemental nature of the universe was
fixed.
• During these few minutes the universe was hot
enough to support nuclear fusion. The amount of
fusion and the kinds of elements formed was a
function of the mass of the universe.
• At this time 24% of the hydrogen was fused to form
helium. In addition, very small amounts of heavier
elements were formed.
• Both of these facts are significant.

the Universe
• The presence of helium in the cores of stars
makes nuclear burning much more efficient
than it would be without it.
• If the universe were much smaller than it is,
no helium would have been formed during the
initial few minutes of the Big Bang.
• As a result, the universe would have
consisted solely of hydrogen, which would
have prevented the formation of stars and
galaxies capable of supporting life.

the Universe
• If the universe were more massive, too much of the
hydrogen would have fused to form heavier
elements, likewise preventing star formation, and
resulting in a universe filled with black holes only.
• We live in a just right sized universe for life to exist.
• Atheists have often stated that the universe is too
large if humans were the sole purpose for the
existence of the universe.
• However, science tells us that if the universe were
any smaller, human life would not be possible.

the Universe
• The constants of the laws of physics have
been finely tuned to a degree not possible
through human engineering.
• These numbers represent the maximum
deviation from the accepted values, that
would either prevent the universe from
existing now, not having matter, or be
unsuitable for any form of life. Four of the
more finely tuned numbers are:

Very large and very small
Numbers
• One million 1,000,000 106
• One billion 1,000,000,000 109
• One trillion 1,000,000,000,000 1012
• One-millionth 1/1,000,000, 10-6
• One-billionth 1/1,000,000,000 10-9
• One-triillionth 1/1,000,000,000,000 10-12

The Fundamental Forces of
Nature

The Fundamental Constants
(Forces)
• Strong nuclear force
– holds subatomic particles together
• Weak nuclear force
– Causes radioactive decay
– Higgs boson is part of this
• Gravitational force
• Electromagnetic force
– Combines electricity and magnetism
• Matter/anti-matter ratio
• Expansion rate of the universe
– H in Hubble’s Law
 If any of these were even slightly larger or smaller
the universe as we know it would not exist!!!

Evidence for fine tuning in the
Universe
• Ratio of Electrons:Protons to be within 1:1037
– if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity,
preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
– if smaller: same as above
• Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity to be within
1:1040
– if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements
more massive than boron would be unstable to fusion
– if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life
chemistry
• Maximum deviation allowed is 1:1037 * 1:1040 =
1:1077

Evidence for fine tuning in the
Universe
• Expansion Rate of Universe to be within 1:1055
– if larger: no galaxies would form
– if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars
formed
• Mass of Universe to be within 1:1059
– if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would
cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a
shortage of heavy elements
• Cosmological Constant to be within 1:10120
– if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-
type stars
• Maximum deviation allowed is 1:1077 * 1:1055 * 1:1059 * 1:10120
= 1:10311

The Fundamental Constants
(Forces)
• Strong nuclear force
– holds subatomic particles together
• Weak nuclear force
– Causes radioactive decay
– Higgs boson is part of this
• Gravitational force must be within 1:1040
• Electromagnetic force must be within 1:1040
– Combines electricity and magnetism
• Matter/anti-matter ratio must be within 1:1059
• Expansion rate of the universe must be within 1:1055
– H in Hubble’s Law
 If any of these were even slightly larger or smaller the universe as we know
it would not exist!!!
 Maximum deviation allowed is 1:1077 + 1:1055 + 1:1059 + 1:10120 = 1:10311

• Random chance –
– We are winners of the cosmic lottery
• Anthropic principle (AP)
– Weak AP: universe must support our presence
– Strong AP: “fine tuning” suggests there is an
intentionality in universe’s creation
• Multiverse hypothesis
– There are many hostile universes, we just
happen to be in one that isn’t hostile
• Temporal Multiverse
• Simultaneous Multiverses

• I find it quite improbable that such order
came out of chaos. There has to be some
organizing principle. God to me is a
mystery, but is the explanation for the
miracle of existence, why there is
something instead of nothing.
Allan Sandage
One of the most influential astronomers of the 20th century

The Bootstrap Argument
The universe started itself
Stephen Hawking proposes M-theory, a variant of string
theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The
conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:
• “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can
and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous
creation is the reason there is something rather than
nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.” Stephen
Hawking, The Grand Design (London: Transworld
Publishers, 2010), p.180
• He added: "According to M-theory ours is not the only
universe. It predicts that a great many universes were
created out of nothing.“ Hawking, Grand Design,
pp.8-9
• Therefore, he claims, there is no need for God.

The Oxford chemist and atheist Peter
Atkins says something very similar to Hawking:
• "Space-time generates its own dust in the
process of its own self-
assembly" and "Mathematics created the
universe.“ Atkins, Creation
Revisited (London: Penguin, 1994), p.143
• He calls it the 'Cosmic Bootstrap Principle'
after the notion that you can pull yourself up
with your own bootstraps. So he believes the
universe created itself in exactly the same
way.

• Hawking's theory is self-contradictory. Hawking wrote: "Because there is
a law like gravity, the universe can, and will, create itself out of nothing."
• But his 'nothing' isn't nothing, rather it is something which contains the
laws of gravity.
• According to Hawking the laws are there already, before a material
universe exists. But where did they come from? And how does he know?
Can the laws of gravity exist in the absence of matter?
• Other scientists maintain we can know nothing before the Big Bang.
• Where does Hawking get his information from?
• Also isn't Hawking confusing physical laws with agency. It is surely a
mistake to think that the laws of physics are agents. Physical laws like
gravity don't initiate actions and events. They merely describe the
physical universe.
• Physical laws cannot create anything. A theory can't bring anything into

View of science greats
Often misrepresented as
atheists: Einstein
• Dawkins cites as his
authority in dealing with
Einstein's religious
views Max Jammer's
book Einstein and
Religion: "The extracts
that follow are taken
from Max Jammer's
book (which is also the
main source of
quotations from Einstein
himself on religious
matters that follow)."[27]

Listed below ten Einstein quotations from Max
Jammer's book from which we can judge whether
or not Einstein was an atheist.
• "I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call
myself a pantheist."[28]
• "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I,
with my limited human mind, am able to
recognise, there are yet people who say there is
no God. But what really makes me angry is that
they quote me for support of such views."[29]
Often misrepresented as atheists: Einstein

• "Every scientist becomes convinced that the
laws of nature manifest the existence of a
spirit vastly superior to that of men."[30]
• "The divine reveals itself in the physical
world."[31]
• "My God created laws… His universe is not
ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable
laws."[32]
• "I want to know how God created this world.…
I want to know his thoughts."[33]

• "What I am really interested in is knowing whether God
could have created the world in a different way."[34]
• "This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in
the world of experience, represents my conception of
God."[35]
• "Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains
something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.
Veneration for this force ... is my religion. To that extent I
am, in point of fact, religious."[36]
• "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the
infinitely superior spirit… That superior reasoning power
forms my idea of God."[37]

• So what does Dawkins conclude? Einstein was an
atheist! But Einstein speaks of "a superior spirit", "a
superior mind", "a spirit vastly superior to men", "a
veneration for this force", etc. This is not atheism.
• Now you may be thinking that we have carefully
selected quotes that support me and left out ones that
don't. But Max Jammer explained in his
book: "Einstein was neither an atheist nor an
agnostic." So this interpretation of what Einstein said,
is the same as Max Jammer's. Is it not bizarre, that
Dawkins cites in support of his claim that Einstein was
an atheist, a book which proves the opposite?

Dawkins could also have consulted Lincoln Barnett's
book The Universe and Dr. Einstein; Einstein wrote the
foreword to it. This quotes Einstein saying:
• My religion consists of a humble admiration of the superior
spirit, who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply
emotional conviction of the presence of a superior
reasoning power, which is revealed in this
incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.[38]
• What's more, Einstein complained about atheists,
saying: "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose
intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the
religious fanatics and comes from the same source."[39]

Often misrepresented as
atheists: Darwin
Richard Dawkins thinks you can't
believe in evolution and God. Charles
Darwin thought the exact opposite.
In his autobiography Darwin wrote:
• “Another source of conviction in the
existence of God, connected with
the reason and not with the feelings,
impresses me as having much more
weight. This follows from the
extreme difficulty or rather
impossibility of conceiving this
immense and wonderful universe,
including man with his capacity of
looking far backwards and far into
futurity, as the result of blind chance
or necessity. When thus reflecting I
feel compelled to look to a First
Cause having an intelligent mind in
some degree analogous to that of
man; and I deserve to be called a
Theist.”

In his autobiography Darwin wrote:
• “Another source of conviction in the existence of God,
connected with the reason and not with the feelings,
impresses me as having much more weight. This follows
from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of
conceiving this immense and wonderful universe,
including man with his capacity of looking far backwards
and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or
necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look
to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some
degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be
called a Theist.”
Often misrepresented as atheists: Darwin

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time,
as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of
Species; and it is since that time that it has very
gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But
then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has,
as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as
that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it
draws such grand conclusions? ...
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse
problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is
insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain
an Agnostic.[47]
Often misrepresented as atheists: Darwin

Solar System’s fitness for life
• Amongst the Oldest
• The right shape
• Within the Galactic Habitable Zone
• Number of earth-like planets in the
Universe
the Universe

Life Zone
Solar Systems Fitness for
Life
• The distance between the planetary star
and the planet containing life is crucial
for life to be able to exist.
• This "life zone" is a very small zone, in
which water can exist in all three of its
forms - gas, liquid, and solid (ice).
• Without liquid water, any kind of life is
not possible.

Circumstellar Habitable Zone
(CHZ) “Goldilocks Zone”– is the
region…

with sufficient atmospheric
pressure can support
liquid water at their
surfaces.
Too little, just right,
too much!

“Temperature”
Not too hot, not too cold
Liquid water is needed to exist on the
surface of a planet.

Too Close – Water boils off the surface.
Too far – Water is frozen, not allowing for
molecules to mix and interact

Our solar system has one planet in
the Goldilocks Zone (0.9-1.2 AU)

Earth (But Mars had liquid
water at one time)
Tons of evidence of liquid
water flowing on the
surface of Mars.

Larger Star:
Rapid, unstable
burning
Smaller Star:
Planet’s rotation
period is too long
Life

The Earth is protected from comets
by the large outer planets
Life

The Earth is protected from comets
by two large, gas planets: Saturn
and...
Solar Systems Fitness for Life

Jupiter: Our Great
Protector

Jupiter and outer planets
Jupiter: just-right size and location:
“without a large planet positioned precisely where Jupiter is, the earth
would have been struck a thousand times more frequently in the past
by comets and meteors and other interplanetary debris.”
“…we wouldn’t be around to study the solar system.”
G. W. Wetherill, Nature 1995, 373: 470; Discover 1993, p 15.
However, if Jupiter were too large, or too close, it would perturb
Earth’s orbit.

Comets:
• Collisions required early in the history of
the Solar System (provided needed
materials)
• Collisions must not occur at high
frequency after establishment of higher life
forms

Not too big not too small (size)
Planets need to have sufficient size to
hold onto its atmosphere, Mars lost most
of its atmosphere.

If planet is too big, gravity
could limit the development of
life.

What type of star is it?
To
determine
the
habitable
zone you
need to
know total
radiation a
star emits.

Life
• The size of the parent star is crucial for the ability of that
star to support life.
• Large stars undergo rapid and unstable burning (extreme
temperature variations over millions of years), which
cannot support life. Stars increase in luminosity as they
age.
• Stars smaller than our Sun are not suitable to support life
on planets. Although these stars are able to undergo quite
stable burning for billions of years, their small mass
requires that life-containing planets be much closer to the
star. Resulting in extremes of temperatures on the surface
of these planets, which prohibits the survival of lifeforms.

Massive stars- hotter, blaze with
radiation, zone is further out.

Smaller stars- tighter belts than
our sun, closer to the star
Live for
longer time,
more
chance for
life to
evolve.
Ex. Kepler-62f, takes 267 days to complete an
orbit

Best stars to search are F-M class,
O-A don’t live long enough

Is that star stable?
Solar eruption from a star could bathe
a planet in radiation.

New stars/old stars- variations
in radiation
Middle-aged star – radiation tends to be
constant

Liquid water-
absorbs high
amount of
radiation, could
protect life
underwater

A planet’s chemistry?
A planet’s atmosphere will absorb a
certain amount of energy from starlight
and radiate the rest back out.

Atmosphere- Tends to trap heat,
more CO2 or methane can
increase the greenhouse effect
and extend the zone.

Energy that is trapped-
difference between
turquoise sea vs. erupting
volcanoes

Atmosphere - look for oxygen,
water, carbon dioxide and
methane (could indicate life).

Supernovae must occur during the
early evolution of our galaxy…
…but not now
Our Place in the Universe
and our Galaxy

• The amount of heavy elements formed during
the Big Bang was insufficient to allow for the
formation of rocky planets (like the Earth) at any
time during the history of the universe.
• However, the design of the laws of physics are
such that God provided a way for rocky planets
to be formed.
• Stars at least four times more massive than the
Sun undergo rapid burning, which culminates in
a spectacular explosion, called a supernova.

• At this time, the temperature of the star
becomes hot enough to support fusion of the
hydrogen and helium into heavier elements.
• Therefore, it is during these supernova events
that the vast majority of the heavy elements
necessary for rocky planet formation are
produced.
• Many of these supernova events are required
within a galaxy for enough heavy elements to
be produced.

• However, supernova must not occur in the vicinity of
life-containing planets, or else all life would be
extinguished as a result of the radiation produced,
which is enormous.
• Earlier a few years back, there was a gamma ray
burst from another galaxy that was powerful enough
to temporarily knock out satellites in orbit and give
each person on the surface of the Earth the
equivalent radiation of a chest X-ray.
• Obviously, any life present in that galaxy would have
been destroyed by radiation levels millions of time
higher than what we received at a great distance.

• Life requires that the planetary system be housed in a
spiral galaxy, such as that seen above. Not only must
the planetary system be located in a spiral galaxy, but it
must be located away from the center of that galaxy.
• Take a close look at the center of the galaxy. There are
some powerful forces acting in the center of this galaxy
that are spewing gases (the red "flames") well above the
galactic disk.
• A planetary system located near the center of the galaxy
would receive too much radiation for lifeforms to exist.
• In addition, stellar gravitational interactions would most
likely disrupt planetary orbits in such crowded conditions
before the planet was suitably prepared for life to exist.

Galactic Habitable Zone :
Area in a galaxy where life has
the best chance of occurring.

Too close to the center, star density
increases, greater chance of being
taken out by a supernova explosion.

Life

Too far out, less stars to
generate the heavier elements
necessary for planets and life
to form.

Formation of the Moon

• Created through the collision of a Mars-
sized planet with the Earth
• The core of the Mars-sized object became
part of the Earth’s core
• Much of the Earth’s crust was ejected into
orbit and coalesced to form the moon
Life

Ejected Earth’s primordial atmosphere,
preventing runaway greenhouse effect
like that seen on Venus
Life

Established the Earth’s current axial
tilt of 23.5º, which is ideal for
maintaining optimal temperatures on
the Earth

Proximity of the Moon
• Slowed the Earth’s rotation
rate from 8 hours to 24 hours
• The original 8 hour rotational period
would have led to winds of 500+ mph

Earth’s tilt about spin axis
“Although our
viewpoint is
certainly biased,
our planet’s tilt
axis seems to be
“just right”.
Rare Earth, p 224.
larger tilt - temperature extremes
smaller tilt - rain not distributed
Privileged Planet, p 5.
+/- 1 deg for several thousand yrs

Earth’s tilt about spin axis
“Constancy of the tilt angle is a factor that provides long-term stability of
the Earth’s temperature. If the polar tilt axis had undergone wide
deviations from its present value, Earth’s climate would have been much
less hospitable…..
Rare Earth, p 224.
These results show that the situation of the Earth is very peculiar. The
common status for all the terrestrial planets is to have experienced very
large scale chaotic behavior for their obliquity, which in the case of the
Earth and in the absence of the Moon, may have prevented the
appearance of evoluted forms of life. We owe our exceptional climate
stability to an exceptional event - the presence of the moon.
Jacques Laskar, quoted in Rare Earth p 224.

The Moon
Just right size and distance from the Earth to
-stabilize tilt
-slow Earth’s rate of rotation
“our moon is somewhat of a freak because of its large size in
comparison to its parent planet.”
Rare Earth p 222.
“Without the moon it is … likely that no birds, redwoods, whales,
trilobites, or other advanced life would ever have graced Earth. …
Although there are dozens of moons in the solar system, the familiar
ghostly white moon that illuminates our night sky is highly unusual,
and its presence played a surprisingly important role …”
Rare Earth p 222.

The Moon
“We owe our present climate stability to an exceptional
event: the presence of the Moon.”
Jacques Laskar, quoted in Rare Earth p 224.
Produced by a “just right” collision?
“to produce such a massive moon, the impacting body had to
be the right size, it had to impact the right point on the
Earth, and the impact had to have occurred at just the right
time in the Earth’s growth process.”
Rare Earth p 231.

Established a unique continental crust, which allows
for recycling of minerals through tectonic activity
Normally, during planet formation, the crust
covers the entire planet.
Under these conditions, the crust cannot move,
since there is no free space for it to do so.
The Planet Sized Collision
that became our Core

• Normally, during planet formation, the crust covers
the entire planet.
• Under these conditions, the crust cannot move, since
there is no free space for it to do so.
• However, large amount of the earths primordial
crust was blasted into outer space by the
collision that formed the moon
• There was space for the original continent
(Pangea) to move and even break up into
additional land masses.

• This movement causes tectonic activity, continents
can exist on a planet that would normally be a water
world.
• Without tectonic activity, the original continent would
have eroded into the large ocean, never to be seen
again.
• In fact, planets with large amounts of water are
always water worlds because of erosion.

Magnetic Field:
• if stronger: electromagnetic storms
would be too severe
• if weaker: ozone shield and life on land
would be inadequately protected from
stellar and solar radiation

( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )
1
100
1
1012
~ 1011 planets in our galaxy
If 6 finely-tuned factors exist, then we have no right
to expect another earth-like planet in the entire
galaxy!!
=
( ) x
1
200 ( ) x
4
100
earth-sized,
in habitable zone
(Nature 470,
27-29, 2011)
G-type,
main
sequence
star
large
moon,
close
( ) x
1
100 ( ) x
1
10
circular
orbit
( ) x
1
100 ( ) x
1
100
right
amoun
t of
water
magnetic
field(liqu
id iron
core)
plate
tectonics
galactic
habitable
zone
(Icarus 152
185-200,
2001; the
physics
arXiv blog)
( ) x
1
100 ( ) x
1
100
( ) x
1
2
rocky
What does it take to make a habitable
planet?
( ) x ….
1
100
right
atmosphe
re
(venus
and mars)

What does it take to make a habitable planet?
( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( )x
1
100 ( ) =
1
100
1
1022
~ 1022 planets in the observable universe
If 11 finely-tuned factors exist, then we have no right to expect
another earth -like planet in the entire observable universe!!
hundreds
of such
factors
exist!
Creation as Science, Hugh
Ross, p 179
See also Why The
Universe Is The Way It Is,
Hugh Ross, pg 122-123 Number has increased
as scientific knowledge
has progressed!

What does it take to make a habitable
planet?
For this is what the LORD says - he
who created the heavens, he is God; he
who fashioned and made the earth, he
founded it; he did not create it to be
empty, but formed it to be inhabited
- he says: I am the LORD and there is
no other.
Isaiah 45:18

Outline
1. Evidence for a beginning of
the Universe
2. Evidence for fine tuning in the
Universe
3. Solar System’s fitness for life
4. Earth’s fitness for life

The Miracle of Life
• For natural selection to work, you have
to have a self-reproducing entity.
• What is the simplest conceivable such
unit?
• It is incredibly complex and full of
information.
• This whole functioning unit has to come
into being all at once, before Darwins'
mutations and natural selection can
function

The Miracle of
life
• Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24
June 1915 – 20 August
2001) was an
English astronomer noted
primarily for his
contribution to the theory
of stellar
nucleosynthesis and his
often controversial stance
on other cosmological and
scientific matters.

The Miracle of
life
• In the 1950s, Hoyle was
the leader of a group of
very talented experimental
and theoretical physicists;
with William Alfred
Fowler, Margaret Burbidge,
and Geoffrey Burbidge.
• This group realized the
basic ideas of how all the
chemical elements in our
Universe were
manufactured, with this
now being a field called
nucleosynthesis.

The Miracle of Life
• Hoyle made a prediction of the energy
levels in the carbon nucleus that was
later borne out by experiment.
• These energy levels, while needed to
produce carbon in large quantities, were
statistically very unlikely. Hoyle later
wrote:
• Would you not say to yourself, "Some
super-calculating intellect must have
designed the properties of the carbon
atom, otherwise the chance of my finding
such an atom through the blind forces of
nature would be utterly minuscule.

The Miracle of Life
What led him to faith:
• A common sense interpretation of the facts
suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed
with physics, as well as with chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature.
• The numbers one calculates from the facts
seem to me so overwhelming as to put this
conclusion almost beyond question.“ —Fred
Hoyle

The Miracle of Life
• His co-worker William Alfred
Fowler eventually won the Nobel
Prize for Physics in 1983,
• but for some reason Hoyle’s
original contribution was
overlooked, and many were
surprised that such a notable
astronomer missed out.
• Fowler himself in an
autobiographical sketch affirmed
Hoyle’s pioneering efforts:

The Miracle of Life
• Sir Fred Hoyle did some calculations on the
likelihood of a hypothetical minimum self-
reproducing cell coming together, given all the
ingredients (this is impossible anyway, by
natural, non-enzymatic processes).
• Hoyle hypothesised a cell of only 400
enzymes/proteins; a real world bacterium has
about 2,000!
• For this hypothetical minimum cell, Hoyle
calculated a probability of it forming by natural
processes of 1 in 1040,000

The Miracle of Life
• To put this in context, there are about 1080 atomic particles in
the universe.
• If the universe actually were 15 billion years old, as Dawkins
believes, this would give about 1018 seconds.
• If every second and every atomic particle were an
experiment in a soup of all the ingredients necessary for the
cell to form, this would amount to 1098 experiments. This is a
long way short of any chance of getting our 'cell'.
• Let's make every microsecond an experiment. This gives
10104 experiments. This is not getting us anywhere.
• Let's make every atomic particle in our universe a
universe like our own with every atomic particle in those
universes and every microsecond an experiment. We now
have 10204 experiments.
• Hey, we're still a long way short of 1040,000 necessary for a
reasonable chance of succeeding.
• The chances of getting our cell are zero!

The Miracle of Life: Prt 2
Let’s assume a self-replicating molecule is possible
• How many amino acids would have to be strung together in the
proper sequence to this hypothetical replicator?
– There are few functional enzymes with less than 100 amino acids
most have hundreds – assume 100 amino acids and be kind.
– This protein must catalyse the joining together of the amino acids
in a copy of itself but has to make them line up in the correct
order as well.
– No such thing is known to exist – amino acids have no
affinity for other amino acids of the same type, nor is there
any complementary attraction like with the neucleotides of
DNA/ RNA
– Functional Enzymes have a 3D structre, so this enzyme will have
to unravel itself to allow amino acids to line up along in the
correct order and at the same time act as a catalyst for their
polymerisation!!

The Miracle of Life: Prt 2
• Probability – since there are 20 different amino acids
involved is (1/20)^100 which is 10-130. In perspective
there are about 1080 Fundamental particles
(electrons etc..) in the universe.
• If every one of them were an experiment at getting
the right sequence with all the right amino acids
present
• And if every microsecond of 15 Billion Years
• This gives 4.7103 experiments, we are still 1027
experiments short of getting even a chance of this
happening.

The Miracle of Life: Part 2
• Its actually far worse than this…
• More than 20 amino acids found in living things
have been produced in ‘origin of life’
experiments
• It is impossible without enzymes to produce
them with the correct chirality – there are left –
and right - handed forms of amino acids,
typically only left-handed forms are used in living
things.
• The non-enzymic processes available in the pre-
biotic soup (since only living things produce
enzymes) could only produce equal quantities of
both left and right. This makes the probability
(1/50)100 10-170

A Real Adam and Eve
• Almost every man alive can trace his origins to
one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new
research suggests. And that ancient man likely
shared the planet with the mother of all women.
• The findings, detailed (Aug. 1 1995) in the journal
Science, come from the most complete analysis of
the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome,
to date.
• The results overturn earlier research, which
suggested that men's most recent common
ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

The Atheism Delusion
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has
quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it
is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our
universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not
even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything
so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism
and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good,
what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in
the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to
being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the
sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their
philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in
the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual
contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its
Scientific Pretensions

The Atheism Delusion
“If we present a man with a concept of man
which is not true, we may well corrupt him.
When we present man as an automaton of
reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of
instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as
a mere product of instinct, heredity and
environment, we feed the nihilism to which
modern man is, in any case, prone.
I became acquainted with the last stage of that
corruption in my second concentration camp,
Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz
were the ultimate consequence of the theory
that man is nothing but the product of heredity
and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say,
‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced
that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka,
and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in
some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at
the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic
scientists and philosophers.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, The Doctor and the
Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy
Viktor Emil Frankl was an
Austrian neurologist and
psychiatrist as well as a
Holocaust survivor. Frankl was
the founder of logotherapy,
which is a form of existential
analysis, the "Third Viennese
School of Psychotherapy"

Atheists like to think that science supports their
worldview, but could the opposite be the case? The
astronomer Fred Hoyle, at that time atheist, said
scientific discoveries had "greatly shaken" his faith in
atheism. He reflected on the energy needed to produce
large quantities of carbon, and wrote this:
• Some supercalculating intellect must have designed
the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the
chance of my finding such an atom through the blind
forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.… A
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
with chemistry and biology... The numbers one
calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming
as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.[71]
Does Science then prove the Existence of God

Does Science then prove the
Existence of God
The philosopher Antony Flew was Britain's
leading atheist before Richard Dawkins. But
by 2004 two scientific discoveries had
changed his mind.
• First, the Big Bang theory
showed the universe
began at a particular
point in time. This raises
the question, what
caused the universe to
begin?
• And second, the universe
appears to have been
fine-tuned for life.
• Flew wrote: “Not merely
are there regularities in
nature, but they are
mathematically precise,
universal and 'tied
together'. How did nature
come packaged in this
fashion? Scientists from
Newton to Einstein to
Heisenberg have
answered - the Mind of
God.”[72]

Existence of God
Roger Penrose, the leading
British mathematician,
stated:
• There is a certain sense
in which I would say the
universe has a purpose.
It's not there by chance.
Some people take the
view that we happen by
accident. I think that there
is something much
deeper, of which we have
very little inkling at the
moment.[77]

• In addition, many of the pioneers of quantum physics
rejected atheism: Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Planck, de
Broglie, Jeans, Eddington, Pauli as well as Einstein. Ken
Wilber's book Quantum Questions explores their religious
writings.
• Wilber argues that all these groundbreaking physicists
believed that spirituality and physics were needed for a full
understanding of reality.
• Wilber poses this question to modern atheists and
scientists:
• “To those who bow to physics as a religion, I ask, what
does it mean to you, that the founders of modern science,
the theorists who pioneered the very concepts you now
worship, were every one of them mystics.”[78]
Does Science then prove the Existence of God

Existence of God
Let me give some examples. This
is Heisenberg:
• I have repeatedly pondered on
the relationship of science and
religion, for I have never been
able to deny the reality to which
they point.
And this:
• Kepler breaks into enthusiasm
at being the first to recognise the
beauty of God's works. Thus the
new way of thinking [science]
has nothing to do with any turn
away from religion.[79]

Does Science then prove
the Existence of God
Max Planck: "There can never be
any real opposition between
science and religion; for the one is
the complement of the other.
Every serious and reflective
person realizes, I think, that the
religious element in his nature
must be recognised and cultivated
if all the powers of the human soul
are to act together in perfect
harmony. And indeed it is not an
accident that the greatest thinkers
of all ages were also deeply
religious souls."[80]

Does Science then
prove the Existence of
God
Schroedinger: "Science is
reticent when it comes to
the question of the great
unity of which we
somehow form a part. The
popular name for it in our
time is God."[81]
And "We know when God
is experienced this is as
real an event as an
immediate sense
perception or as one's own
personality."[82]

Outline
1. Evidence for a design to the
Universe
2. Evidence for fine tuning in the
Universe
3. Solar System’s fitness for life

In
Summary
Does God exist?
And if life takes a miracle?
If our solar system is ideal for life?
And it is highly tuned?
If the universe had a beginning?

The Existence of God

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Existence of God

Similar to The Existence of God (20)

More from Ehab Roufail

More from Ehab Roufail (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Existence of God